Geoengineering
 

Interesting documentary on weather modification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

Re: Geoengineering
 

Conspiracy theory?

Re: Geoengineering
 

"Engineering" weather is knowing the precise moment to flap your arms in your backyard in order to create a hurricane in Tokyo two weeks later.

Don't think we have that capability yet. :)

Re: Geoengineering
 

chaos theory.

Lots of theories...

Re: Geoengineering
 

All we need to do is go to another planet and steal their weather control device...

Re: Geoengineering
 

Did you guys watch the documentary? I thought it was quite interesting.

Re: Geoengineering
 

I watched 45 minutes of it (thanks.) Yes, interesting. I've been hearing about the chemtrail thing for about 12 years, and don't buy that part at all. I buy the part about big agribusiness wanting to make farmers (and everyone who eats their products) dependent upon them (...Imagine that, kinda the defintion of BIG business. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?)

Here's a (common) rebuttal of chemtrail vs contrail issue, and the second YT is a sarcastic sendup (if you read the printed captions.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7kV7MlN9Bc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAq7c0fZSWM

Re: Geoengineering
 

I watched both of the rebuttals. I didn't see any real substantive rebuttals to what was said in the documentary which I thought was pretty well documented. I definitely think Monsanto is terrible.

I have been watching the skies since watching this documentary and I do see two different types of trails. I can't deny that. So, I am not sure what to think.

Here is a goofy video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8

Re: Geoengineering
 

The contrails as continually shown in the "why" video have been happening just like that since the invention of jets. I'm not refuting their bigger claims (engineering seed sales and dependency) But if their whole theory depends upon the supposedly ubiquitous chemtrails, then at least parts of the theory are not true.

IMHO, what you are seeing in your evidence vid is one low-altitude contrail (which are largely condensation--creation of water vapor due to the stream of heat and exhaust from jet engine) contrasted with a high altitude contrail. The low level one is being dispersed due to low level wind shear. The higher one is just being born, so may or may not be visibly dispersed later on like the first one, dependent upon winds and air conditions at the (way) higher altitude. If you happen to know any commercial pilots, send him or her your second vid, and ask if they think those are two different phenomena.

<<Here is a goofy video:>>

Not only there, but often goofy people seem to like to use goofy background music. JMO.

Re: Geoengineering
 

Thanks. Not knowing much of anything about jets/airplanes it helps to know someone who does. There are three kinds of people. Those who knee-jerk That's a conspiracy theory! That's not happening! And those who knee-jerk That's definitely happening! I can see it! And then those who want the facts. I want the facts. That's all. And those are sometimes hard to find.

Re: Geoengineering
 

Amen. And the bigger problem is, even after deciding upon what the facts are, there can still be different ways to assemble the same set of facts. Eventually we should (or have to) depend upon the earned credibility of the "expert" community, meaning people who spend their whole lives focusing on a specific issue. That's why in the science world, "peer review" is such a big deal for establishing credibility of any claim. In Bible scholarship, for example, if 85% of lifelong scholars agree on a certain point of history, archeology, or textual origin, I'll tend to believe the 85%. Some people go with the other 15% because it suits their previous theology better. Fine with me--there are few "facts" that aren't themselves negotiable, but only when given better evidence.

Re: Geoengineering
 

I think we also have to consider the effect that systems have on people. Peer review can be worthless. For example, if you have a drug that needs to get certain marks to be passed into the public domain, if the drug company hires and pays the people who test the drug, amazing things can happen. This is a biased peer review. I am skeptical of anything and everything and I suppose you are too, looking at your sig line. After having been in a system where "peer review" is nothing more than the good old boys club.....that good old boys club exists everywhere in every segment. Truth can be very hard to find. All we can go by is our own truth, as small and untrustworthy even that may be. Fortunately, my salvation does not depend on my knowledge. ;)

Re: Geoengineering
 

Good points. Corruption does exist in the peer review world, and it's not a silver bullet. Still, the good ole boys system functioned well enough to put men safely on the moon, to win WWII in dramatic (scientist-driven) fashion, and to eradicate small pox, polio, etc. etc. And consider how we even KNOW about dishonesty or corruption in the system? Someone ratted out someone else, and told the public the truth. Problems everywhere! Human nature works in mysterious ways.

Re: Geoengineering
 

True dat.